Posted
by
Roblimo
on Friday September 24, 2004 @11:25AM
from the if-you-don't-vote-you-have-no-right-to-complain dept.

We're teaming up with the New Voters Project Presidential Youth Debate to ask the two major party candidates "the 12 previously unasked questions that most concern young Americans." This is different from the usual Slashdot interview because we're asking you to submit questions through the New Voters Project site instead of as comments attached to this post. Next week you'll have a chance to help select questions for the candidates from among the top 50 asked by everyone -- not just Slashdot readers -- by first winnowing those down to 20 through the Slashdot moderation system, then by voting on the "final 12" displayed on the New Voters Project site. On October 12 we'll post the answers, and on October 19 we'll post candidate-supplied rebuttals.

Note that the idea here is to solicit questions specifically from voters 18 - 35, because this age group tends to vote less than older Americans, plus questions from people 13 - 17 who will be voters before long. But the question selection process is not age-restricted, and it's where your comments and moderation become most important, because one great hope here is to avoid asking questions the candidates have heard (and answered) over and over.

Anthony Tedesco, founder of the Presidential Youth Debates, has been doing this since 1996. 2004 is the first time an entire online community has participated in the moderation process. It's a logical evolution of the group-questions idea, and Slashdot is the obvious community to choose not only because of the wide range of political views held by Slashdot readers but also because the primary Presidential Youth Debates tech guy, Dan Collis Puro (AKA Hero Zzyzzx), is a Slashdot member himself (and would be happy if you volunteer to help work on their all-FOSS Web site).

Anyway, this is an interesting experiment. Ask your questions, prepare to moderate and comment next week, and to read the candidates' answers and rebuttals when we post them next month.

Senator Kerry, How do you reconcile the strict environmental guidelines established by the Kyoto Protocols - which you have spoken in favor of - with the creation and continuation of high tech - and therefore high energy consumption - industries?

There are some things that are more important than others not because of their immedieate consequences, but because of the CONCEPTS behind them. I agree that for the welfare of the average American, marriage reform won't make much of difference any time soon.

The problem is that this is a slippery slope that we are in the process of sliding down and if we don't grab a branch soon we're gonna hit the bottom fast. If the government can tell me what marriage is about then it's not a huge leap to assume that it can tell me what a "friendship" is. After all, friendship could be a legally viable term: for instance, "friends" are the only people, along with "immediete family" that can come over to watch a movie before I'm illegally displaying it in my house.

Soon I can't be friends with someone officially unless I've known them for 3 months (and see them at least an average of once every 2 weeks with no more than a 4 week break). Maybe friends are people that agree with you... so you, legally speaking, can't have any outside of your political party.

Yeah, it seems pretty silly to me too, but then again so does the government telling me what marriage is.

At one point it was not necessary for the government to try and define what marraige or friendship was because people did not try to exploit the looseness of the "rules." The more people try to do that, the more restrictions we get.

It seems obvious that either people must place restrictions upon themselves, or that someone else will do it for them.

Hmmm, I seem to recall some states used to have laws prohibiting interracial marriage. When people can't restrain themselves from passing discriminatory laws, well, the Supreme Court has to step in and smack them down. Just something to think about.

I do. Marriage is what society holds up to be the ideal. If you disagree, then you must also logically hold polygamy to be a valid form of marriage. Who are we to say that fifteen consenting adults cannot express their love through a committed set of relationships?

Should we stop what private idividuals do behind closed doors? No. Sodomy laws are unconstitutional in my mind. But marriage is a separate issue.

But what is the difference between a man marrying a woman, a man marrying a man, and a woman marrying a woman? What real difference is there?

Only one of those serves the real purpose of marriage: Keeping track of patriarchal family trees.Marriage is a contract by which a woman enters into an exclusive sexual relationship with a man in exchange for material gain. If gay people are so desperate to be declared "normal" by emulating the rites and tradition of the patriarchal society that they reject by their lifestyle choice, then they should go see a mental health specialist instead of trying to have laws change to accomodate their insecurities.

P.S. I firmly believe that if people want to be with people of the same sex as theirs, and they find someone with whom to live happily that way, then nobody should get in their way. But marriage isn't for them. You don't need marriage to be with someone, you just need to be with them. Civil unions will give you all the tax breaks you want.

P.P.S. If you are gay and you want to follow the rites and traditions of the patriarchy, then become a priest or a nun. If you want to reject those traditions, don't do it half-assed and demand to be included in the tradition of marriage.

If gay people are so desperate to be declared "normal" by emulating the rites and tradition of the patriarchal society that they reject by their lifestyle choice, then they should go see a mental health specialist instead of trying to have laws change to accomodate their insecurities.

Most gay couples I know just want the same legal guarantees as different-sex couples. Such as, if you have lived with your partner in a flat for 20 years and he dies, you don't want to get kicked out of the appartment overnight.

Or, if your partner had an accident and is in intensive care, you don't want to be told by hospital personnel that you can't see him because you are "not family". And that you can't make any decisions on his behalf when he's unconscious, and instead his parents get to make decisions (who maybe have deserted him 20 years ago because he found out he's gay).

Exactly. And the same applies for heterosexual couples. So, get the government out of marriage altogether!! The Government should perform Civil Unions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples alike. Marriage should be left to the couple's religious institution of choice.

First of all, the government doesn't "prevent" marriage. People have marriage ceremonies without the government's consent, and it doesn't matter. The question is (a) should government recognize marriage, and (b) in what cases should government recognize marriage.

If marriage is viewed as an act of love, then government has not reason for involvement whatsoever. However, if you view marriage as the foundation platform for a family, then that view changes, for several reasons:

1) Stronger families mean that there is less need of government intervention in the general case. Strong families have less need of governance.

2) When children enter the picture, you have a lot of issues surrounding care, custody, etc., all for a child which has no real input into the matter.

When marriage is viewed as a foundation for a family, then there are legal reasons for the government to recognize or not recognize certain marriages (but again, legal recognition of marriage is not equivalent with marriage).

On a different topic, one could also point out the absurdity of calling anything between same-sex partners "marriage". Even in the past when same-sex relationships were viewed as being better than man-woman relationships, same-sex relationships were not considered, even for a second, marriage. Why? Because marriage is more about family than it is about affections.

Some may say that same sex relationships are "ungodly" because they don't produce children,

What does god have to do with this? The primary reason for goverment recognition of family to to encourage children and a stable social environment for future citizens. If you're not encouraging "family", then there is no point in government recognized union. This has nothig to do with "god", just common sense.

How is it a genetic defect? From the point of view of the survival of the species homosexuality itself is a minor risk, and you have to remember that many gay couples would be willing to adopt or be 'inseminated'. By your logic, we should also not have any laws that protect other 'genetic defects' such as handicaps, mental development problems, albinism, people with genetically elevated risk of cancer etc.

No. No. No. No. Not morality. Judeo Christian teaching, sure, but not morality. Morality is not so clearly pinned down. Until you can tell me, without reference to religion, why polygamy is immoral and monogamy moral, this is utterly spurious.

And if you can't do it without reference to religion, then the separation of Church and State says its none of the government's business.

(Of course, what you'd have to do is define objective morality. And its hard to make a good case for objective morality. Murder's pretty easy. Anything that directly affects people who are non-consensual to the act... you can make a case for that. Consensual gay marriage? Good luck with that.)

Seeing as these men were responsible for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they would probably tend towards your third example, where freedom is "do what you like, according to certain rules and regulations". The founding fathers took great pains to emphasize the rights of the individual, though, and not the majority; in fact, they even went so far as to pontificate explicitly on the concept of "minority rights" and the "tyrrany of the majority".

Contextually, you'd be hard pressed to argue that the founding documents' primary impetus and foundation was not driven by the Enlightenment and the entire concept of the "Rights of Man". If it were a Christian document at heart, you'd see more than passing references to God.

...what business does government have in framing public policy around a religious institution?

The way I see it, each religion/denomination should be responsible for defining marriage for their respective members. Government should have absolutely ZERO involvement in defining marriage.

If governments want to establish a secular "union" status for benefits and tax purposes, fine. If government would just get out of the business of recognizing and establishing "marriages", we woudln't even be having this gay marriage debate.

My views exactly. This is one area which the separation of church and state should be really enforced. Other Issues like every time a public person who uses the word g/God shouldn't really matter, because they are not really pushing any particular religion. But in the term of Homosexual marage the "Morality" of this is based on many different religons and they all have different views on this.

Do you believe that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Mormons should be allowed to practice polygamy?

They already can, for the most part. There are no laws stopping a man from living with multiple women, sleeping with them, having those women carry his children, etc. And there is no laws against those churches performing marriage ceremonies for polygamy.

To religious people, the government has no power to marry. If it turned up that due to some legal mixup my wife and I were not legally married I would not consider us "living in sin" for 4 years.

marry 3 people simultaneously, or whether one of these "people" can't be a horse or other arbitrary livestock?

er. the law, which is what we're discussing here, only applies to people. can a horse be charged with murder? does it need to submit income tax returns? no. and it can marry or be banned from marrying either. your point is moot.

if you're going to argue against gay marriage then i would request that you stay away from over-dramatic implementations of the slippery slope fallacy.

Actually, what would be more interesting is to see when/if we are ever going to have a time that is not a national emergency. We have a lot of laws that have special exceptions for times of emergencies. The interesting detail that most people leave out is that the United States has been in a constant state of emergency since 1933. For different reasons, of course, it just so happens that EVERY YEAR there is something that warrants a national emergency. We don't think about it, so we allow all sorts of legislation to pass with exceptions for national emergencies, not even thinking about the fact that we are always in one.

What I want to know is each candidates position on reinstituting the draft.
As someone who is going to be up for selective service once the new president is in office, I am very concerned about this subject. I also miss the election by a few weeks.
So I have to deal with the reprocutions of whoever is in office although I don't get to vote.

The purpose of these bills is to call attention to the fact that Bush is unwilling to share the burdens of the war in Iraq among all Americans. The wealthy get tax cuts, the middle class (their children actually) get the bill, and the poor, without jobs or access to job training, have few alternatives except to do the fighting. A draft without any exemptions would even the burden somewhat.

Some facts:

George Bush miraculously jumped to the top of a 500+ person waiting list to get his berth in the Nat'l Guard and then failed to show up for a flight physical after the US spent approx $1M to train him as a pilot.

John Ashcroft received several deferments [subgenius.com] during Vietnam. One was a critical occupation deferment for teaching business law at a Missouri college.

Trent Lott (R, MS) avoided the Vietnam draft and lies about it [talkleft.com].

Out of the top three Republicans in the House and the top three Republicans in the Senate, none served in the military.

It seems only fair that the children or grandchildren of these fine folks should be given a chance to die for their country just like the rest of us. Maybe it would make their parents think a little longer about the need to go to war and then do a better job of planning for the occupation afterword.

So you think it would be more fair to have a draft, forcing people to join the military who don't want to, than to maintain a volunteer only force. [scratches head]
As for your "facts"...George Bush miraculously jumped to the top of a 500+ person waiting list to get his berth in the Nat'l Guard
I have heard this one a lot... altough usually in the 200-300 person range. The media seems to think that Ben Barnes has publicly said that he helped Bush jump ahead of the waiting list... but then again, his own daughter says [wbap.com] that he is lieing to promote his own book and his political agenda. In fact his own words [cbsnews.com] are that he was simply asked to recommend Bush for guard duty. He says he can't recall if he wrote a letter or made a phone call. Either way, since when is writing a recommendation letter for someone "inappropriate". Simply making a call to recommend someone is a very different thing than to move someone to the front of a waiting list (if it existed).

I say that because I have also heard the argument that there was no waiting list at all, but instead as few as 10 other applicants. I guess my question is, how do we know the status of the "waiting list" for the TANG in 1968? How do we know which people on it were even medically qualified? Since you have said this was a fact I was curious if you could help clear up the matter and cite a source.

and then failed to show up for a flight physical after the US spent approx $1M to train him as a pilot.

Was Bush obligated to obtain his flight physical? I ask this because I am a military aviator and know that I am required to make sure I get my annual physical. I have never heard of anyone missing a physical, but then again Bush was in the last year of his obligation, and temporarily assigned to a non-flying squadron while his permanent squadron was phasing out his aircraft. If I knew that I wasn't going to fly an aircraft for my remaining time in the military and was just closing a deal to go back to college, I wouldn't go out of my way to obtain a flight physical either. Oh, and this was all after something like 4-5 years as a guard pilot... it is not like he got his initial training and vanished.

Many questions circulating seem to revolve around the rumored return of "the draft", apparently at the behest of a secret Bush administration effort.

In truth, the pair of Universal National Service Act bills, S.89 and H.R.163, have been introduced and sponsored by liberal Democrats. S.89 is sponsored by Sen. Fritz Hollings (D-SC), while the companion H.R.163 was introduced by Congressional Black Caucus cofounder and Harlem representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), along with 14 other Democrats that read like a Who's Who of the Left in Congress:

By contrast, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill, H.R.487, to repeal the Military Selective Service Act, permanently ending the draft. Cosponsors include two other Republicans and five Democrats.

I'm really surprised from the tone of many of these rumors, everyone seems to assume it's Bush or the "neo-cons" behind some kind of effort to reinstate "the draft", when in reality it's all liberal Democrats that have introduced and sponsored the bills, while almost all Republicans OPPOSE forced service, whether it be civil or military.

This is indeed an important issue, but when writing your representatives in Congress and/or the President - or voting - keep in mind who is actually supporting these bills. Hint: it's not Bush and the "warhawks"...

I hope this information is found useful.

PS - the predictable copout, when faced with the truth, of "yeah, well, the only reason the liberals are doing it is because they have no choice, so that the sons and daughters of the warmongers and of the rich Republicans in Congress would actually have to serve, perhaps making them think twice about voting for war" is a little tired, ESPECIALLY when the initial accusations about the draft routinely revolve around Bush and his "cronies" "secretly" wanting to bring it back. Do we need to all sit down and watch the Schoolhouse Rock about how bills become law again? Additionally, if you truly oppose the draft, shouldn't you come to terms with the fact that it's liberal Democrats who are the ones closest to making it a reality? Stop trying to justify it with a bunch of ridiculous arguments.

Physician, heal thyself. You're arguing against a series of straw men.

I don't recall having run into one blinking person who's said that she thinks Bush and his cronies are secretly plotting to reinstate the draft. Heck, Rumsfeld went out of his way to dismiss the military significance of draftees in previous wars, in a move I remember particularly well because it so upset my Uncles down in Oklahoma who served. Your entire premise is a misstatement of the objections to Bush's policy.

What is said is that Bush's policies have made the reinstatement of a draft more likely, and that the specific changes made to terms of military service -- not allowing scheduled retirements, dramatic changes to the terms of service of the national guard -- amount to a "back-door" draft right now.

It's funny how your "who's who" of the left in congress didn't include Teddy Kennedy or Mark Dayton. Those were the first names on my lips. Also funny how the support for H.R. 487 is bipartisan with a slight slant to the Democratic side.

There are also people in congress from both sides who support the broader "national service" idea this bill was about.

You're looking at a complicated issue and stomping it flat to score political points. Oh, yeah... I think I know which candidate you support...

I don't recall having run into one blinking person who's said that she thinks Bush and his cronies are secretly plotting to reinstate the draft. Heck, Rumsfeld went out of his way to dismiss the military significance of draftees in previous wars, in a move I remember particularly well because it so upset my Uncles down in Oklahoma who served. Your entire premise is a misstatement of the objections to Bush's policy.

There are TONS of websites, blogs, and emails circulating which either imply or directly state that "the administration" is trying to "quietly" bring back the draft. Some even reference the actual bills, but of course don't link to them. Most people just assume what's said is true on its face.

What is said is that Bush's policies have made the reinstatement of a draft more likely, and that the specific changes made to terms of military service -- not allowing scheduled retirements, dramatic changes to the terms of service of the national guard -- amount to a "back-door" draft right now.

That I will agree with. The Guard is being used for tasks for which it was never intended, quite inappropriately in my personal opinion. However, consider that the forces are there, and the current administration, frankly, doesn't want a draft. It was either that, or cripple active forces - or find more soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines elsewhere. I don't agree with it, but since I agree that the radical elements in the mideast as a whole MUST be dealt with, up to and including with force, I agree with the general strategy.

It's funny how your "who's who" of the left in congress didn't include Teddy Kennedy or Mark Dayton. Those were the first names on my lips.

It's not really "funny", and "who's who" was a little tongue-in-cheek, but some of those representatives are pretty darned liberal.

Also funny how the support for H.R. 487 is bipartisan with a slight slant to the Democratic side.

How is that funny? I even noted that. I'm glad that sensible people on both sides of the aisle might be able to collaborate on a bill. What's "funny" is that there's not a SINGLE Republican on the former set of bills.

There are also people in congress from both sides who support the broader "national service" idea this bill was about.

Sure, but I think that's a different discussion. Heck, I think if framed properly, a lot of people would support some kind of "service" (not necessarily military). But I don't think that's what people are talking about when they speak of the "draft".

You're looking at a complicated issue and stomping it flat to score political points.

On the contrary: I simply don't have time to write a novel on the subject on slashdot. I realize it is insanely more complex than what will be discussed here.

This whole issue is ridiculously more complex than what people want to make it out to be. Sometimes I wonder how the United States ever had the will to fight and win the great battles of this century.
Oh, yeah... I think I know which candidate you support...

Oh? Please, do tell. Because I really don't particularly like Bush. Or Kerry.

Kerry's detailed policy speech today was fantastic, in my opinion. (I'm glad he's stopped talking about something that happened over three decades ago.) He talks about Al Qaeda being the real enemy. He talks about holding Saudi Arabia accountable and responsible. He talks about becoming independent of mideast oil. He talked about radical Panislamism wanting to use hatred of the West to topple governments in the mideast to develop a new unified empire in the region, to fight the US and the West. He made some really firm statements about the things we should be doing. It all is really, really great rhetoric - and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense.

But how do we do these things?

Al Qaeda *is* the real enemy. And "Al Qaeda" is rooted in the mideast. NOT in Iraq, but in the region. And much of the Arab/Muslim world s

"And "Al Qaeda" is rooted in the mideast. NOT in Iraq, but in the region. "

First of all Al Queda is not rooted in the mideast. It WAS kind of rooted in Afghanistan but now is a diffused worldwide cult. That's right, it's not an organization it's a belief system.

Secondly if it was NOT in iraq then there was NO reason to attack Iraq. Why not attack where it was? Doesn't it strike you as the supreme height of stupidity to start the attack on Al Quada by invading a country that they were NOT in? Explain that to me.

"And much of the Arab/Muslim world shares a lot of the same disdain for the US and/or West-at-large for much of the same reason."

The war is against the US not the "west at large". It's basically against the US and Israel until Iraq was invaded. Right now Britain and a few other allied who took part in the invasion and occupation of iraq are also in their target list.

There are specific reasons why the US was attacked and not Canada, New Zealand, Finland, Germany or any of the other western democracies. All those countries are also "free", they are all also "western". Americans for some reason can't understand why anybody might hate them or how any of their actions may be seen as hostile but it's true. They hate you for what you do. Not because you are "free" or because they "hate your way of life".

"Israel. Bush is the first president to call for a completely autonomous, sovereign Palestine. Short of exterminating Israel as a whole, that's the most dramatic position in FAVOR of the Israel-opponents' cause any US president has ever taken."

I think just about everybody realizes that it was all talk. Bush has done NOTHING to make that happen. He has completely abandoned his "roadmap". He refuses to even critize sharon for expanding settlements or building that wall. Even a casual observer of the situation knows who wears the pants in the Sharon Bush relationship and it aint bush. Do you remember when Bush told Sharon to pull his tanks out of some city (I forget which one now) and Sharon basically told him to fuck off. Bush did nothing. That was pretty early on in this administration. From that point on everybody knew who was in charge and it wasn't bush.

"Eliminating dependence on mideast oil. A nice idea. One wonders how he plans to accomplish that since he's also opposed to any new nuclear reactors,"

Conserve a little, increase gas mileage requirements and voila you are there. Nuclear plants are just gravy if they are built (and they should be IMHO).

" "Iraq" is but a first step to gain positive influence in the area as part of a much larger strategy. "

You keep saying that but there is no basis for it. You yourself admitted that Al Quada has no presense there. In fact Iraq was a SECULAR SOCIALIST state not a religious state like Iran or saudi arabia. If you want to attack "panislamic radicalism" (what an inane phrase did you come up with that?) then why not start with an islamic state?

"it will take a long time, will make a lot of people hate us in the meantime, and will require a lot of hard work and sacrifice."

Hundreds of billions of dollars that could have gone to repairing your schools, providing healthcare, feeding the hungry will be flushed down the drain. I guess your kids don't need those new books after all. Oh and all those people who hate us do you think a few of them might want ot kill us in the same numbers as we are killing them? You think one or two might resort to chemical or biological attacks on US soil? It'a all fine and dandy to talk about sacrifice now but wait till you actually have to start paying for all this with your money and lives. You think right now that OTHER people are going to die and OTHER people are going to pay and you are fine with that. But I bet you'll be singing a different tune when the economy starts backtracking and your city gets hit.

"But ULTIMATELY, it will be better for us, better for Europe, and better for the peoples of the mideast."

Actually, your 'predictable copout,' is exactly WHY liberals have introduced the Draft. Today's all volunteer army is disporportionately made up of the lower income classes. The idea was to get a draft with fewer loopholes, so that *everyone's* kids would be at risk. It really has little to do with chilren of liberals vs children of conservatives. It has to do with putting some risk in it for the higher-income classes, when they start beating the War Drums. In that light, you can see why the Black caucus is behind the bill. Others get the idea to go to war, but a disporportionate number of Blacks pay the ultimate price.

OTOH, military service is certainly a way for lower income people to bootstrap their way into a better economic class.

Who fired first? What is your opinion on Han firing first? Was it justified? Is he a murderer or a hero? What about revisionist editing by Lucas? Should all/.'ers who get bent out of shape over such matters be detained at Guantanamo Bay? Or just CmdrTaco?

The USA incarcerates a greater proportion of its population than any other nation, due to an out of control War on Drug Users. What will you do to keep me, successful student, productive citizen, and pot smoker, out of jail?

George W. Bush: Drugs are terrorists. We have to fight these terrorists, to keep our families safe, like the thousands who lost loved ones in the vicious, terrorist attacks of 9-11. That's why we're winning the war for freedom for the people of Iraq.

Kerry: My party enjoys the benefits of getting voters like you on our side because we're the "liberal" party - but when it comes down to it we also like the benefits of being able to rush some more insane mandatory minimum sentencing and revisions to the bill of rights through congress any time we feel we need to have a "we're tough on crime" pissing contest with the GOP. So I'm just going to keep treating that issue like Kryptonite so I can play both sides.

Teresa Heinz-Kerry: Oh god, we all smoked dope like it was going out of style back in the day! I never said that... you're twisting my words... stuff it! You can just stuff it!

John Edwards - uh, what Kerry said, but with my own little rhetorical spin so you know that I'm not just the man's little sidekick, in case we somehow get the next 8 years outta this, or if he tanks it and I get to go for the gold in four.

Mr. Bush, I supported your decision to replace Saddam Hussein, and I'm not embarrassed to say that I don't care whether WMDs were found or not.That being said, why does it seem that no one had a clue about what to do with Iraq once the war was over? With our proven experience in successfully occupying other countries (Germany, Japan), why did we stumble so badly in Iraq?

Follow up: Is it too late to get rid of John Ashcroft? He makes me ashamed to be "conservative"

I question why you think that justifies the blood of 10,000 innocent people on our hands. Is it your argument that Saddam Hussein would have slain 10,000 more people in this time period? The only likely target for such activity, the Kurds, were being protected from such by our no-fly zone.

Revenge on Saddam for murdering innocents, simply does not justify our own murder of innocents. Perhaps, if the fantasies of Iraq as a shining bulwark of freedom and democracy were to be realized it would be worthwhile. But the reality is that we are looking at ongoing bloodshed, and a pending civil war bloodbath worse than the inhumane and barbaric regime we cast down.

Yes, we should have left Saddam in power. I don't like him, in fact I loathe him. He's much closer in metaphorical terms to a demon than a saint. However, Iraq was a *sovereign nation* that we had no legitimate reason to invade. Doing so is imperialism, plain and simple (per m-w.com: Imperialism: 2: the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly: the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence). Explain to me how it isn't. Explain to me how you can justify our invading a country and removing its *legal* ruling power from office when that country was not a direct threat to us.

Thus far our track record in wars that don't directly involve American safety (ie WWII) is pretty poor, particularly in cases where we replaced a sitting, legal government. I can't personally think of any examples where that sort of conflict worked out well for the citizens of the country where the war actually happened (feel free to correct me on this, my knowledge of American military history is far from complete).

I feel sorry for the people of Iraq. They've gone from a brutal dictorship to a brutal power vaccuum, and will most likely end up with another brutal dictatorship within a decade (I'm sorry, but all signs currently point to democracy not working out). They probably would have been better off having a civil war and being done with it - at least that way the new goverment would have some legitimacy.

With our proven experience in successfully occupying other countries (Germany, Japan), why did we stumble so badly in Iraq?

That was like, what, 50 years ago? I think we might be somewhat out of practice. But the big thing is that occupied-Iraq is little like occupied Germany or Japan.

With Germany and Japan, the populace largely supported their side of the war. In Iraq, most everyone had hated their government for decades, and wished it gone.

The people of Japan and Germany were completely and totally bombed into submission, their will broken and their outlook irrevocably changed. But in Iraq that wasn't necessary, because of modern technology and because my my point #1.

Thus the pride-based culture in Iraq is largely intact. Having to be saved by outsiders, from a man we eventually dragged from a hole, can make some feel "humiliated."

Iraqis have been exposed to decades of anti-American propoganda -- both from Saddam's dictatorship and from the outside world. The Japanese and Germans were indoctrinated too, but point #2 illustrates that it was beaten out of them.

And finally, in post-war Germany and Japan, there weren't terrorist groups sneaking in to cause trouble, try to tear the country apart, and attempt to install a new fascist regime. I'm looking at you, Iran, Syria, Al-Qaeda, and pals.

And finally, in post-war Germany and Japan, there weren't terrorist groups sneaking in to cause trouble, try to tear the country apart, and attempt to install a new fascist regime.

Actually, there was a significant resistance in Germany from the Werewolfs, resistance still loyal to the Nazi party. They engaged in similar acts as the Iraqi resistance: intimidation and assasination of leaders who supported the Allied occupation, bombings, etc. Several factors led to the breaking of this resistance. Your point #2 is a good example. Another thing that must be remembered is that we weren't the only ones in Germany during its reconstruction. The American approach to the resistance was a faaar cry from how the Soviets dealt with it. The Russians were absolutely ruthless when it came to wiping out Nazi sympathizers (or those suspected of being Nazi sympathizers). I'm sure this had quite an effect as well.

I do honor America's intentions in Iraq. For all the sobbing people make about the "thousands of poor iraqis" killed in the conflict, there is a certain truth that is eluding them: It's a fucking war. And in war, innocent people will die. In the end of WWII, it was not uncommon for 100,000 innocent Japanese civilians to die in a single bombing campaign. I believe the US is acting nobly in trying to minimize the civilian casualties during this conflict through the use of precision munitions. But when your enemy is purposly embedding their positions within major population centers, what are ya gonna do?? The terrorists fire a mortar into a busy marketplace, intentionally killing civilians. The US responds by firing back on the attackers, who conveniently happen to be surrounded by civilians themselves. It's all a propaganda ploy. It's the insurgents who are the true monsters, intentionally using the Iraqi people as shields and political collateral.

I've heard some rather hawkish folks say that we should employ the same tactics as the terrorists - kidnap their families and loved ones and decapitate them on national TV, following in a similar vein to how Russia dealt with suspected Nazi insurgants - mass and indescriminate executions. Part of me feels that this might be effective: find the one thing the bastards care about and destroy it in the most violent and humiliating way possible, break their spirit and their will to fight. Make their followers think twice before they kidnap some innocent charity worker. But then I have to remember that we are obligated to take the "moral high ground" in this war, as difficult as that will be. As Americans, we have our honor in how we fight our battles, and we simply do not do business like that.

That's because we never officially started a war. Congress and the President conspired to take on a military action that they call a "war" when it suits them, but never to actually produce a declaration of war, a cessation of war, or any other legitimate status. Who wants the formality of Articles of War (as the Constitution requires) when a blank-check, do-what-you-want, whenever-you-want permission slip will do just as well? Especially when people might then be interested to see an official end of wartime status, so the people and courts know when to resume the normal order of protecting those inconvenient things like civil liberties?

"Inter Arma Silent Leges (In times of War, the Law is Silent)."

"We are at war with Eurasia, and we have always been at war with Eurasia."

The ultimate tax cut will be when there is no further servicing, paying interest on, the national debt. US tax payers would need only pay
about 50% of what they currently do for approximately the same level of service from the federal government. Further, the extra money left to taxpayers
would amount to considerable investment and consumer spending. The federal government
has cut tax revenue and returned to deficit spending rather than hold spending below revenue and retire the debt. How would you address balancing the federal budget and
paying down the debt, so americans will pay far less in taxes?

You have said that recent CIA estimates of the instability and dire situation in Iraq represent the CIA "just guessing." Since you are choosing to disregard the intelligence community's considered assessment of the situation, on what basis do you formulate your contrary assessment of the situation in Iraq?

1) Mr. Bush, exactly how fucking high were you when your handlers somehow let you say "there are OBGYNs that are unable to practice their love on the women of America"?

2) Mr. Kerry, while I, like many Americans, approve wholeheartedly of your 1-point "Get Bush the Fuck Out of Office" plan to getting America back on track, do you have an actual agenda to win over those of us who wouldn't vote for a stuffed deer head before Bush?

Why are you so much alike, yet you campaign in a way that makes the American public think that there is a significant difference. I can think of several important areas where you are virtually indistiguishable:

1) Use of Military Power: Both approve of foreign intervention, but one party prefers to get the tacit approval of the international community before invading.

2) Tax Policy: Moving the marginal rates around only makes a difference of a few bucks to the average tax payer. The user fees are almost exclusively a middle-class burden, and neither party looks to decrease any of them.

3) Intellectual Property: Both parties are rushing to become the poster child for media conglomerates. They constantly chastize the 'media', but can't wait to lick their boots when it comes time to pass legislation regarding extending copyright protection (as one sleazy congressperson said: "Forever minus one year").

4) Drug policy: Neither party can put a stop to the madness that the drug war has brought us. Nothing useful has been accomplished in 30 years of police-state enforcement of drug laws. That is, unless you consider the fact that the US leads in per-capita encarceration as a 'positive' social gain.

These are just a few. Why shouldn't we view the Demopublican or Republicratic Parties as two sides of the same bad penny?

How about the now century-plus old campaign to convince Americans there are only two choices?

They've screwed up the election process to make it extremely difficult to get on the ballot in all 50 states. Once upon a time, it was a write in ballot, not multiple choice.

After Perot appeared on the presidential debates, their media buddies helped them screw with those rules to make it virtually impossible for that to happen again.

For that matter, why are there no third parties in this "Youth Debate"? I'll tell you why, the last thing we want to do is have the youth find out that it doesn't have to be a two party system. Young minds are predetermined to see things in black and white anyways.

Go ahead slashdot, help brainwash another generation into believing in this complete perversion of representative democracy.

Of course, they're the same people with the same agenda. All these people screeching "We have to get rid of Bush! Vote Kerry because third party votes are wasted". Gah.

Kerry isn't going to end the war in Iraq, repeal PATRIOT, lower taxes, allow same-sex marraige, he's not going to do anything to change the status quo.

Presidential politics are purely smear campaigns, because there's no issue that they actually differ on significantly.

Let's look ten years out. Since we have a wave of baby boomers planning on retirement, what effect will their retirement have on me, my family, and the nation as a whole.How will we pay for the trillions that Social Security, Medicaid, and all of the other entitlement programs be handled?How does having countries like Japan, China, and India who are buying our debt (thus allowing us to spend more money than we have), change the equation? How does the fact that Japan is heading for their baby boom retirement in 4 years change our equation?

Please answer in a fashion which is not compatiable to a 10 sound bite.

Mr. President, Senator Kerry, why should Michael Badnarik, David Cobb, Michael Peroutka and Ralph Nader be excluded from the Presidential debates? After all, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, John Edwards, etc. were all included in the primary debates.

African americans are convicted for drug related crimes in great disproportion to the frequency with which they commit these crimes relative to other ethnic groups. Further, they are sentenced more harshly relative to other ethnic groups. What do you think is the cause of this severe imbalance in law enforcement and the judicial process, and what can be done to correct the problem?

As a followup question, what effect does this have on the health of democracy in states where a criminal record can render one ineligible to vote?

To Bush: As part of your Vision for Space Exploration that you laid out earlier this year, do you intend to direct NASA in the direction of human settlement of space, or just scientific research.

To Kerry: As president, would you direct NASA to continue with human space exploration of planetary bodies or would you contract it's focus to Earth and near-Earth subjects? (Please provide specifics as previous answers to this have been very vague [space.com].)

I'd like to ask both candidates:
1. Do you think it's right for China to have the "Most Favored Nation" status in foreign trade, even though they continually violate people's human rights.
and
2. Do you fair trade is fair to the American worker when people overseas can live on less than half the money Americans need to survive here, and companies overseas have no labor laws. Isn't "Fair Trade" as it is championed today just an excuse for US businesses to get cheap, powerless labor?

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that, even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there "degrees" of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting thewhole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)?Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Thats funny, an makes a point, however not a negative ones for christians..let me explain.But first let me state that many Christians do not know there own theology.

here we go:

What you listed are from what is knwo as the Holy Code. Which was abandoned by Jesus Christ(Yes, THE Jesus Christ) who laid down the New Covenant.

Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."

Hebrews 8:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect."

Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete."

Hebrews 9:9-10 The Old Covenant "was symbolic...concerned only with foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."

As you know, this all stems from Leviticus 18:22"V'et zachar lo tishkav mishk'vey eeshah toeyvah hee."Literally translated:"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman"

nobody really knows what "lay lyings" means. It is assumed to be anal sex, but other interpetation exist.At this time it is my opinion that the sins is not 'anal sex' but 'treating a man as a women'. remember the era. Men were perfect, women were considered property. This would be mistreating a perfect(and thus 'clean') thing as unclean.

This would also explain why NO WHERE in the bible does it condone lesbians.

Modern bibles(who need to sell a product) have added the word homosexuallity to the bible. There is no hebrew word for this, and in fact the word homosexuality was created in the 19th century.

For the first time in history, this presidential election will make use of electronic voting machines to track more than half of all votes cast nationwide. Diebold is the largest manufacturer of these machines.

The Diebold machines have been proven insecure by numerous security analysts, and contain numerous security flaws. For example, it has been shown that anyone can change the electronic vote tallies by simply writing and executing a five-line computer script.

William W. O'Dell, CEO of Diebold and one of the largest Republican campaign contributors in the state of Ohio, has stated publicly that he will do "everything he can" to get George W. Bush re-elected.

My question is this: While there are clearly several advantages to electronic voting, do you believe that these problems could compromise the integrity of the 2004 election?

when interviewed during the last presidential campaign, you were asked by an interviewer if you had a role model. To this you replied that Jesus was the closest that you had to one.

During your tenure as Governor of Texas, more people were killed in Texas prisons, enacting the death penalty, than during the tenure of any previous Governor in modern times. You presided over an execution nearly every two weeks from the moment you took office.

Considering the commandment of 'Thou shalt not kill' directly from God, and considering Jesus' stance on killing, how do you explain this glaring discrepancy between 'do as I say, not as I do'?

Do you think it is fair for large corporations to set up divisions in the Cayman Islands or other locations in order to avoid paying taxes (i.e. Enron, Haliburton), especially when it's often just a mailstop?

Do you think companies that do this deserve all the benefits a company that does pay its U.S. taxes gets? Do you think the US government should do business with corporations that practice this behavior?

Do you think the law needs to be changed and if so how and if not, why not?

In addition to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are engaged in a "War on Terror." It would seem that the wars are being extended, and in the case of the War on Terror, there is no end is sight. How do you plan to keep the military strong enough to wage these wars, and any future wars ? Will you bring back the draft ?

I'm currently enrolled in College, and I had the pleasure of attending a lecture by John F. Kennedy Jr, nephew of President Kennedy. Most of what he said was that President Bush is the worst president the United States have ever had for the environment. He also said that in a real free market companies do NOT pollute, and cited the case of 1100 coal burning plants to produce electricity which produce about 60% of the mercury contaminating the US's waterways today.Mr. President, you say you share family values. In my family, one of the aspects my parents taught me was to not leave a mess behind me, and also how to take care of the environment. Shouldn't that be part of your plans too? Or do you favor the coal plants more because they donated over $100 million to your campaign? Also, according to Mr. Kennedy's lecture, the mercury contamination in water will be responsible for up to 30,000 deaths a year. That's more deaths than the ones that happened in the Twin Towers on sept. 11th! WHY are you letting American citizens die? And why do you appoint people that fake the numbers when it comes to science? Wouldn't the space shuttle Columbia disaster be related to your negligence in appointing people knowledgeable in critical positions?

Mr. Kerry, what will you do to support the environment? Will you re-open the lawsuits that our President has closed against the coal burning plants? Will you listen to the scientific community in general instead of a selected few that tell you what you want to hear instead of the truth?

Yes, I am a supporter of John Kerry in this campaign, but to be frank it is more because I fear President Bush more than Senator Kerry.

I fear that the United States risks losing its potential economic dominance in space if we don't act soon. President Bush's space proposal is a good start, but I don't see it being a priority for him or the Congress, which means it's just another 'wishlist' as opposed to real policy.

Given that the development of space could significantly grow the economy (and humanity for that matter), will you make space development a real priority in your administration?

Please explain why I am a "young" voter because I'm 33. I have two kids, a wife, a house and mortgage, a job, a lawn that needs mowed, aches and pains in joints I never knew I had, a dog and a cat.

Why do voter advocacy groups put me in this youth group and associate me with others as young as 13-17? I don't get jiggy wit it cause P Diddy says voting is phat. I don't spread the bling-bling to my senate homies cause a certain bill is whack. I don't look to MTV to motivate me to vote and get involved.

10-15 years makes a lot of difference in one's life. Please explain why these groups assume that "youth" campaigns appeal to adults.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry, I'm sure you both have plans to influence Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons... but that is not what I'm asking. I want to know what the US's reaction will be under your administration if Iran ignores outside pressure and continues to pursue nuclear weapons anyway.

(If this is actually submitted, please knock off the sig...)SanglothI'd appreciate any comment with a logical basis... it doesn't even have to agree with me.

The simplest question, about the most wanted man in the world, who requires regular kidney dialysis and is therefore unlikely to be scooting about the Middle East from hidey-hole to hidey-hole on a daily basis.

The most powerful nation in the history of the planet supposedly has every resource, from human intelligence to the most sophisticated spy satellites, hunting for him.

So, Mr Bush, three years on, where is he?

Is there *any* chance at all that this mass-murderer, who killed not only thousands of US but also hundreds of allied citizens at the WTC, has not been found is because he is hiding in Saudi Arabia, a country which your administration refuses to antagonise in even the slightest way?

Yes or no, Mr Bush. Is there a chance that he is in Saudi Arabia? And if the answer is yes, why aren't you looking there?

"Mr. President, why do you think the Democrats think you're such a bad leader? I think you've done an admirable job, and I can't for the life of me understand why so many people hate you."

For me it was when he said that non Christians shouldn't be considered citizens, much less patriots. So if in his eyes I'm not a citizen, I guess there's no way for me to vote for him.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists.

One of the things I have found particularly alarming about the Bush Administration has been the assault on basic and fundamental consitutional protections. These include statements by Ashcroft that they would ignore judicial orders to release detainees after Sept. 11th, and comments by Rumsfeld that the right to habeus corpus, trial, etc. should be waived if the administration feels that this is in the public interest (i.e. that we don't want Jose Padilla to be, in his words, "lawyered up").

Bush: How do you respond to people who are very much concerned that your administration does not want basic to protect the basic checks and balances of our system?

Kerry: What are your thoughts on these issues? Why should I conclude that your administration will not continue these policies?

PRESIDENCE BUSH: YA!!~ it's like slow and it's telling you all the stuff you did in the first one then the music kicks in and and the chief comes out and gets a gun the earf is on fire and chief is like fuck this im jumping and HE JUMPS PUT OF TEH SPACESHIP with angels singing and he lands on the bad guys and that annoying ai lady is like GO GET EM TIGER! WILDCAT IS ON TEH SPOKE!!!~`1 and theres less polys but rawkin bumb mappings you can view this on a special MICROSOFT xbox disk that comes with EB games store.

Personally I feel that the government should pay for child care until your children go to school.

Oh, you FEEL that way, huh? And how can you possibly justify that? Why should I be burdened because YOU decide to have a child? You make a decision to procreate, you'd better understand the consequences of your actions. I have two children and never asked anybody for a dime, and NO, I'm not an evil rich republican greedy bastard, thankyouverymuch.

Business's should be able to afford it or people won't work for them.

Now I know you're smoking crack... you realize the majority of people employed in the U.S. are employed by SMALL businesses?

So let's say you start a small house cleaning company. People like your business and soon you have a full schedule, so you hire someone to help you to expand your business. First it's part time, but business keeps expanding so you hire her full time. Now you and her are making a living. You make a little more, say 25 to 50% because it is, after all, your business. Then she gets pregnant and has a baby. Now you need to hire another person FULL TIME to take her place AND pay her?

Your mistake in logic is that all businesses must be run by greedy republicans who can afford to pay people for not working.

This is one of those "sounds good when I wrote it" things, I hope... because what you'd be doing is encouraging employers to avoid hiring women at all.

When you take a job it's a private contract between you and your employer, and if you don't like the terms you can leave it to someone else. Don't let the door hit you on your ass on the way out while they're laughing at you for saying "but you run a business, you should be able to afford to pay me for not working!"